I'm sorry, but if something is under Copyright from before I'm born until well after I will likely be alive, then, it doesn't matter if there *IS* a limit, for me, it's eternal.

And that is why I do not support copyright, it is eternal, regardless of what is said.

(Furthermore, the fact that retroactive extensions have happened in the past renders the current limits utterly meaningless, as the government has already demonstrated that it is not committed to holding up its end of the bargain with the public.)

The rest of us have to do it, what the hell makes artists any different?

This entitlement is the reason copyright maximalists keep pushing to steal (an appropriate use of the word here) more money from our wallets.

"Our" being the consumer.

Want me to pay for your work? Good luck with that, because I don't pay for your "work". I pay the middlemen who mark up your work and give you a pittance in return.

So stop whining. If you want more money, talk to your goddamn distributor and leave everyone else out of it.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we'll start with one more related comment, this time on the subject of remixes and derivative works. When a bunch of big artists joined forces to fight a compulsory derivative license, insisting (ridiculously) that many artists would not release any work if they thought people might remix it (it's not like artists are jostling each other for the privilege of being remixed by DJs with bigger followings or anything like that, right?), Ninja calmly offered a reply that appropriately amounts to "if that's true, then good riddance":

We accept the wealth of new creations in detriment of the possible "losses" suffered due to short sighted morons not releasing their works.

How can you not see that we have to do this in order to stop the spread of radical ideas promoting a social order that controls it's members by restricting information and vilifying all those who disagree with their narrow views of what is acceptable.

For editor's choice on the funny side, as is often the case, we've got a pair of comments sparked by failures. But not the failures of the NSA, or the MPAA, or an aging rocker or a young producer, but rather our own failure to catch some typos in out post about ASCAP's collusion with record labels. First, when we accidentally dated an email in 2014 rather than 2013, before we could fix it, an anonymous commenter offered an explanation for the discrepancy:

Their email servers are probably also calibrated to use Hollywood math so even the timestamps on the servers are off.

The idea that artists would not release works out of fear of their works being remixed against their wishes is laughable on the face of it because the act of not releases your work for any form of experience by an audience makes you, in a social sense, not an artist at all, and therefore, you'd be removing any relevance that your opinion might otherwise have as "an artist."

And if you can successfully withdraw your cultural contributions from society so easily out of contempt for what the rest of society might do with them, then you probably already have enough money that more wouldn't have mattered and you're probably too anti-social anyway. I would just say thank you for allowing other, possibly lesser known artists to move in to fill the void that you left in the market.

Windows XP Support And Intellectual Property

Seems as good a place as any to raise this subject.

As you may know, Microsoft is going to end support for its Windows XP operating system this April. It has been selling it, and supplying updates to it, for over 12 years, and many are saying itís quite reasonable to stop now. This in spite of the fact that a third of the installed base of PCs are still running it. It should be quite all right for Microsoft to wash its hands of all responsibility for those miliions of users, isnít it?

Except, I think not. All those installed copies of Windows XP are still very much Microsoftís responsibility.

Why? Because, remember, it never sold any of those copies, it only licensed them. It claims they are its intellectual property.

Imagine you had a piece of property that you abandoned and neglected, letting it get covered with weeds, occupied by squatters, interlopers dumping rubbish etc: the city council would prosecute you for creating a noxious neighbourhood nuisance. All those abandoned Windows XP installations come under the same principle.

Re: Windows XP Support And Intellectual Property

For situations like that, I'd say there would be a good argument of 'if you're not supporting it, the customers deserve the ability to do so on their own', meaning if a company drops official support for something, whether it be software, a pieces of tech, or whatnot, then it, if not enters the public domain, at least has the rights 'loosened' enough that people don't risk a lawsuit from reverse engineering it in order to maintain and patch it themselves.

Re: Re: Windows XP Support And Intellectual Property

Re: Re: Windows XP Support And Intellectual Property

Or they could do what IBM did with OS/2.

IBM dropped all support many years ago, but licensed it to a third party. Their version of it (eComStation) is still available, with support and updated drivers etc provided by a small group of developers. www.ecomstation.com

But it's not in Microsoft's interest to do that, it might impact sales of their own later versions, a scenario that IBM didn't face.

The new ACLU theme song

Sue, sue, sueIt's all we ever doSue, sue, sueWe're the ACLUForget the state, we want a federal judgeThe will of the voters doesn't mean fudgeTenth amendment? Just forget it!Sue, sue, sueWe're the ACLUDon't you say your prayers, boyOr we'll sue you too!

Brought to you by the We Don't Care What The Voters Decided In The Democratic Process Or What The Tenth Amendment Says We'll Make Sure No State Can Set Its Own Definition Of Marriage And If That Means Getting One Federal Judge To Overturn The Will Of The People So Be It division of the ACLU.

Re: The new ACLU theme song

Same song, slightly different notes

Hey, if the majority of the people in a state object to interracial marriages because it would 'destroy traditional marriage', then obviously that means people of different races don't deserve the right to be married, because it's the 'will of the people'. /s

Re: Same song, slightly different notes

Re: Re: Same song, slightly different notes

Umm, try again, that was very much a real issue in the US for a good while there, to the point that it took a 1967 ruling of the Supreme Court to finally kill off the various laws in place that prohibited that very thing, laws that were in place in 16 states at the time of the ruling.

However, such is getting off track from what I was trying to point out, that the panic over 'homosexuals getting married' was pretty much just a rehash over the panic of 'interracial couples are getting married', and equally stupid, even if the terms had been changed slightly.

Re: The new ACLU theme song

I suppose me bringing up the point that state laws can never trump the US federal frikkin' Constitution would just be ignored, am I right?If you really want your state to ignore that very important piece of paper, then campaign to get your state to secede from the US of A and become its own independent nation. Until or if that happens, you are bound by the Constitution.

Re: Re: The new ACLU theme song

Oh, you mean the constitution that says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"? THAT constitution? That IS the constitution you're referring to, right? So tell me, where in this constitution you mentioned is regulation of marriage a power granted to the federal government and prohibited to the states?

Re: Re: Re: The new ACLU theme song

So as you can see, this has nothing to do with state laws trumping the US constitution. Your comment was either deliberate deflection or misinterpretation on your part. Whatever the case, it didn't go ignored. I replied to you, now please answer my question.

Re: Re: Re: censorship

Re: Re: censorship

Well the one thing they all have in common - correct me if I'm wrong - was continually whining that we hid their comments, often just on principle, and called it censorship.

Since we then pointed out that their comments could be un-hidden at will, I think they're trying to "prove" they've been censored and are hoping that someone will mount a campaign to "reinstate" their "posting rights."

As far as I'm concerned, good riddance.

I think Just Sayin' may well be a sock puppet of AJ or Darryl, not a new troll. They're not fooling anyone.

Re: censorship

Wow! I really, really liked the idea of increasing password expiration times for those who use strong passwords. We should also start teaching people that strong passwords don't mean impossible to remember. I like the idea of pass phrases (with blank spaces and all). But then we need IT developers to allow long passwords and spaces. It's way easier when you use phrases.

best comment

"How can you not see that we have to do this in order to stop the spread of radical ideas promoting a social order that controls it's members by restricting information and vilifying all those who disagree with their narrow views of what is acceptable."

Re: best comment

Something could be screwy. My google joke about having "GO" and "GLE" tattooed on my ass cheeks didn't even register as funny. Should I have mentioned the color scheme of the letters? Is it a common tattoo?

Perfectly Logical

"How can you not see that we have to do this in order to stop the spread of radical ideas promoting a social order that controls it's members by restricting information and vilifying all those who disagree with their narrow views of what is acceptable."